Paying to Do Better: Games with Payments between Learning Agents

In repeated games, such as auctions, players typically use learning algorithms to choose their actions. The use of such autonomous learning agents has become widespread on online platforms. In this paper, we explore the impact of players incorporating monetary transfers into their agents' algorithms, aiming to incentivize behavior in their favor. Our focus is on understanding when players have incentives to make use of monetary transfers, how these payments affect learning dynamics, and what the implications are for welfare and its distribution among the players. We propose a simple game-theoretic model to capture such scenarios. Our results on general games show that in a broad class of games, players benefit from letting their learning agents make payments to other learners during the game dynamics, and that in many cases, this kind of behavior improves welfare for all players. Our results on first- and second-price auctions show that in equilibria of the ``payment policy game,'' the agents' dynamics can reach strong collusive outcomes with low revenue for the auctioneer. These results highlight a challenge for mechanism design in systems where automated learning agents can benefit from interacting with their peers outside the boundaries of the mechanism.

Contracting with a Learning Agent

Many real-life contractual relations differ completely from the clean, static model at the heart of principal-agent theory. Typically, they involve repeated strategic interactions of the principal and agent, taking place under uncertainty and over time. While appealing in theory, players seldom use complex dynamic strategies in practice, often preferring to circumvent complexity and approach uncertainty through learning. We initiate the study of repeated contracts with a learning agent, focusing on agents who achieve no-regret outcomes. Optimizing against a no-regret agent is a known open problem in general games; we achieve an optimal solution to this problem for a canonical contract setting, in which the agent's choice among multiple actions leads to success/failure. The solution has a surprisingly simple structure: for some $\alpha > 0$, initially offer the agent a linear contract with scalar $\alpha$, then switch to offering a linear contract with scalar $0$. This switch causes the agent to ``free-fall'' through their action space and during this time provides the principal with non-zero reward at zero cost. Despite apparent exploitation of the agent, this dynamic contract can leave \emph{both} players better off compared to the best static contract. Our results generalize beyond success/failure, to arbitrary non-linear contracts which the principal rescales dynamically. Finally, we quantify the dependence of our results on knowledge of the time horizon, and are the first to address this consideration in the study of strategizing against learning agents.

Explainable Reinforcement Learning via Model Transforms

Understanding emerging behaviors of reinforcement learning (RL) agents may be difficult since such agents are often trained in complex environments using highly complex decision making procedures. This has given rise to a variety of approaches to explainability in RL that aim to reconcile discrepancies that may arise between the behavior of an agent and the behavior that is anticipated by an observer. Most recent approaches have relied either on domain knowledge, that may not always be available, on an analysis of the agent's policy, or on an analysis of specific elements of the underlying environment, typically modeled as a Markov Decision Process (MDP). Our key claim is that even if the underlying MDP is not fully known (e.g., the transition probabilities have not been accurately learned) or is not maintained by the agent (i.e., when using model-free methods), it can nevertheless be exploited to automatically generate explanations. For this purpose, we suggest using formal MDP abstractions and transforms, previously used in the literature for expediting the search for optimal policies, to automatically produce explanations. Since such transforms are typically based on a symbolic representation of the environment, they may represent meaningful explanations for gaps between the anticipated and actual agent behavior. We formally define this problem, suggest a class of transforms that can be used for explaining emergent behaviors, and suggest methods that enable efficient search for an explanation. We demonstrate the approach on a set of standard benchmarks.

How and Why to Manipulate Your Own Agent

We consider strategic settings where several users engage in a repeated online interaction, assisted by regret-minimizing agents that repeatedly play a "game" on their behalf. We study the dynamics and average outcomes of the repeated game of the agents, and view it as inducing a meta-game between the users. Our main focus is on whether users can benefit in this meta-game from "manipulating" their own agent by mis-reporting their parameters to it. We formally define this "user-agent meta-game" model for general games, discuss its properties under different notions of convergence of the dynamics of the automated agents and analyze the equilibria induced on the users in 2x2 games in which the dynamics converge to a single equilibrium.

Auctions Between Regret-Minimizing Agents

We analyze a scenario in which software agents implemented as regret minimizing algorithms engage in a repeated auction on behalf of their users. We study first price and second price auctions, as well as their generalized versions (e.g., as those used for ad auctions). Using both theoretical analysis and simulations, we show that, surprisingly, in second price auctions the players have incentives to mis-report their true valuations to their own learning agents, while in the first price auction it is a dominant strategy for all players to truthfully report their valuations to their agents.

Neural Networks for Predicting Human Interactions in Repeated Games

We consider the problem of predicting human players' actions in repeated strategic interactions. Our goal is to predict the dynamic step-by-step behavior of individual players in previously unseen games. We study the ability of neural networks to perform such predictions and the information that they require. We show on a dataset of normal-form games from experiments with human participants that standard neural networks are able to learn functions that provide more accurate predictions of the players' actions than established models from behavioral economics. The networks outperform the other models in terms of prediction accuracy and cross-entropy, and yield higher economic value. We show that if the available input is only of a short sequence of play, economic information about the game is important for predicting behavior of human agents. However, interestingly, we find that when the networks are trained with long enough sequences of history of play, action-based networks do well and additional economic details about the game do not improve their performance, indicating that the sequence of actions encode sufficient information for the success in the prediction task.

Behavior-Based Machine-Learning: A Hybrid Approach for Predicting Human Decision Making

A large body of work in behavioral fields attempts to develop models that describe the way people, as opposed to rational agents, make decisions. A recent Choice Prediction Competition (2015) challenged researchers to suggest a model that captures 14 classic choice biases and can predict human decisions under risk and ambiguity. The competition focused on simple decision problems, in which human subjects were asked to repeatedly choose between two gamble options. In this paper we present our approach for predicting human decision behavior: we suggest to use machine learning algorithms with features that are based on well-established behavioral theories. The basic idea is that these psychological features are essential for the representation of the data and are important for the success of the learning process. We implement a vanilla model in which we train SVM models using behavioral features that rely on the psychological properties underlying the competition baseline model. We show that this basic model captures the 14 choice biases and outperforms all the other learning-based models in the competition. The preliminary results suggest that such hybrid models can significantly improve the prediction of human decision making, and are a promising direction for future research.